26 December 2009 9:53 PM

How long before small boys here ask: A church? What’s that, Grandad?

I had hoped to have a sort of Christmas truce this week, but the controversy just keeps on raging, drowning out the choirs and bells. And one of the problems is Christmas itself. How much longer will it exist in the form we know today? I fear it won’t be much longer. Many of its traditions are visibly dying. Teachers complain that children don’t know the carols any more, because their parents don’t know them either. At a couple of packed services during Advent (a season many haven’t heard of), I’ve noticed that large numbers of adults stand with their lips not moving during the singing of these simple, easily mastered songs. Perhaps they’re humming, or struck dumb with awe, but it looks to me as if they are just completely unfamiliar with words or music and don’t know what to do.

For the moment, they still think they should come to church, but for how much longer? A few days ago I heard a story from the former East Germany, where Christianity was coldly tolerated but officially discouraged, and as far as possible denied to children. This created a mixture of hostility and indifference that has not been overcome in the 20 years since the regime collapsed. The link between people and Christianity, many centuries old, has now been broken. A small boy was walking with his grandparent past a church in a small town in Brandenburg. ‘What’s that strange building? What’s it for?’ he asked. But East Germany wasn’t half as subtle as the politically correct revolutionaries who run this country. Our lot are far cleverer. They hope to destroy the Christian religion through a thousand regulations. But first they have to rob it of its ancient standing by treating it as equal (if not slightly inferior) to Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. The modern Left don’t hate these religions, because they are not their own and they weren’t brought up in them. So they love celebrating Eid and Diwali in schools, and smile indulgently at public employees who take Muslim religious holidays or go on pilgrimage.

And now, increasingly, we see a freezing official intolerance of Christianity in the State sector, a campaign that will be spread to the private sector eventually by cunning regulation and the rules over awarding contracts. I believe in a pretty reserved sort of religion myself, and wouldn’t necessarily welcome it if a nurse or a teacher offered to pray for me. But I think I could make the point politely myself. What is actively sinister is the way that such people are now threatened with disciplinary action.

It is quite a small thing now.

But if you study the binding codes of conduct and practice of many trades and professions, you will find that they all contain the same little provision. You must promote equality and support diversity. This rule comes from the EU, which makes most of our laws, and which recently refused to put any mention of Christianity, the basis of European civilisation, in its constitution. Equality and diversity are codewords for political correctness, and these codes make it compulsory.

Watch out for increasing attacks on Christian State schools, on official or public celebration of Christian festivals. The word ‘Christmas’ is already slipping out of use in police forces and local authorities.

If you don’t protest, these will succeed. By the time the BBC relegates Carols From King’s to a special minority channel, replacing it with a football match or a ‘special Holiday edition of Strictly Come Dancing’, we will be so used to this sort of thing that we will barely notice it. And then Christmas will be gone.

*******************************

Another happy snap from the mad world of ‘global warming’

Odd, isn’t it? Most of our media have now swallowed the man-made global warming cult so completely that the coldest December in recent memory, here and abroad, has generally been covered with hardly any attempt to explain how this fits in with the idea that the polar ice-caps are about to melt away and drown us all.

I know perfectly well that one cold winter doesn’t necessarily mean that the planet isn’t getting warmer, but this month’s hard frosts are not by any means the only indicator that the whole theory may be wrong. That is the reason for the fuss about the leaked emails, suggesting that scientists may not have been scrupulous about the truth.

Supporters of the panic ask why so many people remain convinced of the warmist theory. Haven’t they heard of embarrassment? If you have ordered everyone into the lifeboats because the ship is sinking, and the ship fails to sink, it is very hard to admit you were wrong – especially if you’ve drifted too far away to get back aboard.

******************************

The old could do with help too, William

There's nothing wrong with Prince William spending a night dossing on the London streets, and I’m all in favour of the many fine charities that try to get rough sleepers out of their doorways and into jobs and real homes. But I wish we would stop referring to these poor people as ‘homeless’ as if their plight resulted from a shortage of housing. It is mainly caused by other things: the increasing number of broken families, and especially of abusive step-parents; the disastrous spread of drug-taking, especially that worst of all drugs, the mind-wrecking cannabis which is stupidly promoted as ‘soft’ by evil and selfish people who should know better; and the closure of so many mental hospitals under the mistaken ‘Care in the Community’ programme.

Also, this Christmas, there are other people whose plight needs Royal publicity, especially the lonely, vulnerable old – huge numbers of men and women, to whom we owe much, living in poverty and in fear of feral neighbours.

********************************

Two Brains and two contradictory ideas on marriage

Yes, it’s the Useless Tories again. I’ll make them a New Year offer. If they stop being useless, I’ll stop attacking them for it.

But here comes David Willetts – so-called Two Brains – the intellectual powerhouse of the Cameron revolution. In a flattering and friendly interview with (of course) the anti-British, heavily State-subsidised Guardian newspaper, Mr Willetts accurately warns that marriage is dying out except among the rich.

Why is this? Because the State actively encourages fatherless families with social housing and benefits, and through anti-marriage sex-education in schools. Mr Willetts has many times emphatically rejected any attempt to do anything about this, falsely describing the real defence of marriage as a ‘war on single mothers’. He needs two brains to carry two contradictory ideas in the same head.

**********************************There is something grimly funny about Gerry Adams’s denunciation of his late father as a child abuser. Which is worse? Being the leading apologist for terrorist murder in the British Isles, or being a paedophile? Gerry Senior, being dead, cannot defend himself against these allegations. One wonders what might be said about Gerry Junior when he is no longer among us.

*************************Do not forget, at this season of feasting, that soldiers are still dying and being maimed in Afghanistan and that the Government cannot explain why.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Again, thanks to contributor Peter Preston for his replies.

With regards to your theory about the pagan references to virgin birth being 'glimpses into the future', I concede that this may be possible, although I'd like some evidence before considering it a valid explanation. Besides, there's no reason to suppose that Christianity is not itself inspired by glimpses into the future of the real Messiah. You say that we shouldn't be restricted to science, and should show more imagination, but that way lies sloppy thinking of all kinds. We'd be advocating a kind of relativism towards truth. Also, you yourself have said that science would open to include any new phenomena as 'natural', so it is not restrictive at all.

As to your picking me up on the false singular, you're right gramatically -perhaps I should have said a 'false plural'- but 'false singular' is a convenient term in critical thinking to convey the idea that several things have been inaccurately grouped together, in this case 'Christians'.

Also, thanks to Dave M for his contribution. I'd say to him that I'm perfectly happy to let religious people have their faith, but when they claim (as many do) that their position is intellectually defensible (or even intellectually necessary), I feel that I'm entitled to challenge their position. Plus, I find the notion of eternity of pain for 'evil people' abhorrent, as it is surely disproptionate to any crime, no matter how horrendous, and offers no chance for redemption (one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty). 'Evil people' is a term I'd rather avoid anyway, as it has connotations of lazy moral assertions made by the media, which rarely take factors like upbringing into account. In fact, I seriously doubt whether there are people who are 'evil', as I like to think that even the most deranged have redeeming features.

I'll just add one thing to the religion/athiest debate - why, when so sure of their belief/unbelief do people bother arguing the facts when it boils down to I believe or do not believe !

I do not think of myself as religious (though the idea of an eternity of pain for evil people after death or an eternity of pleasure for the 'good' is an appealing idea) - but the point of religion is that it is based on 'faith' - either you have it or you do not ! There is no argument because there is no proof either way.

I should add though that I would be pleased to find out when my time comes that my eternal soul was going to be well pleased with its place in the infinity of space/time and that I was forgiven my doubts !

May I add a postscript to my earlier reply to contributor Joshua Wooderson, who wrote:

"'Christians' is a false singular, as there is such a diversity of belief within this group. However, even if you assume that virgin births and resurrections have occurred elsewhere, surely you'd admit that it's unlikely the Christian story would have been replicated exactly in previous religions?".

The word "Christians" is indeed a very false singular, sir, because it's a plural.
I did not, and do not, assert or assume, as you say, sir "that virgin births and resurrections have occurred elsewhere". Why should any reasonable person make assertions about things of which he has no knowledge? I am not even interested in such speculations and I have enough experience of life not to believe things just because people tell me that they are true.
For all I know, you may be right in saying that "there were cults whose fertility rites at Easter time included the sacrifice of a god king, with staged resurrections" but might not those earlier events have resembled - for all anyone knows - a presage of some reality which was approaching.
Even something as modern as the musical "West Side Story" has a song in it, which suggests, amongst other things:
"Who knows?
It's only just out of reach,
Down the block, on a beach,
Under a tree.
I got a feeling there's a miracle due,
Gonna come true,
Coming to me! "

Might not the events you describe, sir, have been similarly an awareness - and who cares, whether it could be 'scientifically demonstrated' or not because it would be too big anyway to fit into something as restricted as the sciences necessarily must be? - that something miraculous was coming? And when the events which the Christian New Testament relate, happened, the mask was off, so to speak, and the 'something coming' had arrived.
Might not what you call an "apparent lack of imagination on God's part." really be a lack of thoroughgoing logic and imagination on ours?.

Contributor Christopher Wooderson, whom I thank for his kind reply, writes of my suggestion that earlier references to what we would call "miraculous events":
"If psychic phenomena are what you refer to by 'undoubted precedents', then I must add that the evidence for the existence of such phenomena is distinctly dodgy and very much inconclusive."

I'm afraid, sir, that I have not made my meaning clear. Nothing whatever to do with anything that might be called "psychic phenomena" nor anything of the kind..
I intended merely to suggest that it was not impossible that certain events might be sensed in advance by certain individuals, even if not by others.
As I wrote earlier, sir, I do not know whether any such glimpses of future events have ever been perceived by anyone - certainly never by me - nor am I interested in such things at all but, if such things were possible - about which I claim no knowledge - then even miraculous events might be 'foreseen', so to speak, and so the suggestion that allusions alleged to have been made to miraculous events similar to but anterior to events related in the Christian New Testament may - for all we know - have been provoked by such glimpses into the future and that in writing ".... doesn't the truth of these earlier claims render the miracle of Jesus that bit less miraculous, or suggest that there may be naturalistic explanations for such phenomena" you might have failed to take that possibility into consideration.

In writing that "There seem to be undoubted precedents in other spheres. so why not here?" I realise now on re-reading this that the adjective "undoubted" is unwarranted and I withdraw it. Some people have said that such previsions have happened,
Perhaps I mighy clarify my meaning better by removing that whole sentence, for it was not in any case particularly relevant. I most certainly am not talking about anything so unhealthy-sounding as "psychic phenomena"

Thanks to Peter Preston, for responding to my post. I'd like to contend a few issues, if I may. You said "If, as one earlier contributor suggested, certain individuals have described or asserted events of, for example, virgin births or resurrections from the dead, there is nothing unscientific in the notion that some of those utterances may have been provoked by perhaps fleeting glimpses into real future events...There seem to be undoubted precedents in other spheres. so why not here" There is something profoundly unscientific about this, in that it is probably unfalsifiable, and, even if it's not, there is no evidence for its truth. If psychic phenomena are what you refer to by 'undoubted precedents', then I must add that the evidence for the existence of such phenomena is distinctly dodgy and very much inconclusive.

You then go on to say: "I don't know whether any such insights have ever been granted but I maintain that the possibility of such happenings can not be challenged by any merely scientific evidence." Excuse me if I'm misinterpreting you, but this seems to contradict your earlier claim that 'there is nothing unscientific about the idea'; if its possibility cannot be contended by scientific evidence, then it is utterly unscientific, as it is unfalsifiable. Besides, just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that it is any way probable. A giant purple fairy called Gerald may well be possible, but isn't probable.

I assume you are a fairly liberal Christian, sir, for I'd say that a large number of those who share your faith would consider paganism to be nonsense, certainly the more fundamentalist ones. 'Christians' is a false singular, as there is such a diversity of belief within this group. However, even if you assume that virgin births and resurrections have occurred elsewhere, surely you'd admit that it's unlikely the Christian story would have been replicated exactly in previous religions?

For example, there were cults whose fertility rites at Easter time included the sacrifice of a god king, with staged resurrections. The sacredness of bread and wine are echoed in other cults. I welcome any explanation for this apparent lack of imagination on God's part.

Contributor Joshua Wooderson, whom I thank for his comment on one of my postings, writes:
"By highlighting similarities between Christianity and earlier pagan religions, the sceptic is trying to demonstrate that most aspects of paganism are (rightly) regarded as nonsense by Christians, but this one aspect isn't."

That may be what "the sceptic" is trying to demonstrate, sir, but, if so, he is well wide of the mark. In the first place Paganism is not regarded, as far as I am aware, as "nonsense" by Christians.
What is nonsense is the proposition, sometimes advanced by contributors to this forum, that miraculous events - that is, events which arouse in people great wonder and astonishment - are rendered less believable, if similar events have been asserted or described by more than one witness or author.
If, as one earlier contributor suggested, certain individuals have described or asserted events of, for example, virgin births or resurrections from the dead, there is nothing unscientific in the notion that some of those utterances may have been provoked by perhaps fleeting glimpses into real future events granted to individuals endowed with enhanced receptivity to such insights into the nature of things. There seem to be undoubted precedents in other spheres. so why not here?
I don't know whether any such insights have ever been granted but I maintain that the possibility of such happenings can not be challenged by any merely scientific evidence.
You add, sir:
"Besides, doesn't the truth of these earlier claims render the miracle of Jesus that bit less miraculous, or suggest that there may be naturalistic explanations for such phenomena?"
But whether you find an event miraculous, must depend on how wedded you already are to what you call natural and so is concerned with subjective reactions to events and not to the events themselves. My grandfather would have thought quite inconceivable facilities which we take for granted today.
What in any case would it matter, if the events described in the Christian New Testament concerning the Founder of Christianity rendered those events "that bit less miraculous"? Christianity isn't about people performing miracles - though some of the events described may seem miraculous to those who unscientifically hold the view that "Science" is the only onion in the stew - but about something far more important.
Of course "naturalistic explanations for such phenomena" will in due course be found, for that's what the sciences do. The sciences are the most expensive operation ever mounted in order to widen the connotation of the word "natural".
Future generations will one day discover that their task is largely a linguistic undertaking. The sciences are an attempt to write a new - and sometimes exciting - kind of poetry. Whether it will produce its Shakespeare, its Virgil or its Ovid, however is another matter.

This seems to miss the point: "Now there's an interesting line of thinking for you. It's easy enough for Christianity's detractors to sneer at a belief in a single virgin birth and a single resurrection from the dead but this contributor seems to be suggesting that it is "common sense" to doubt a proposition not because it is advanced by just one group but - if you please! - precisely because it has been advanced by more than one group of people."

By highlighting similarities between Christianity and earlier pagan religions, the sceptic is trying to demonstrate that most aspects of paganism are (rightly) regarded as nonsense by Christians, but this one aspect isn't. Unless one were to accept that there may be truth in the belief that we came from the sweat of giants (as one religion did), it is hypocrisy to believe that there was truth in older faiths claims of resurrection and virgin birth. Besides, doesn't the truth of these earlier claims render the miracle of Jesus that bit less miraculous, or suggest that there may be naturalistic explanations for such phenomena?

Thanks for your post and I didn't think you were rude at all, just a bit direct. Anyway, my reply wasn't exactly the nicest I've written- in fact none of my posts on this thread have been particularly friendly either...

As for your creative limitations, I imagine everyone doing such a course feels the same way. You probably don't realise how much your imagination, given free reign to express itself, improves over time.

I noticed in today's Daily Mail (and, no I didn't take it at face value but did a search on the Web as well) that the planet Mars is getting hotter at much the same rate as our own planet. That's a bit awkward isn't it? With no intelligent life to poison the planet by burning fossil fuels and no atmosphere anyway, I wonder what could be causing that. It coudn't be that the damn fools were right all along could it and the whole thing is caused by the sun's radiation gettting more intense before it subsides again could it?

Thank you for your response to my rather rude comments of 29 December. I really must stop trying to be a smartass and treat people with a bit more respect. In fact that is my New Year resolution; I hope it lasts longer than my usual resolutions, my last successful one was 10 years ago when I gave up smoking.

Your thoughts on what happens when we die are interesting. My personal view is that death will be the same as all those billions of years before we were born - I certainly can't remember anything abpout that time. If lack of an afterlife makes life pointless, then what is the point of the afterlife? Maybe there's an after-after-life. And so on.

Good luck with your writing course, I did an OU short course last year and really enjoyed it although it did make me all too aware of my creative limitations.

Michael Williamson - yes I've often entertained that grim scenario - however, after a few experiences with total anaesthesia, I've come to doubt that any awareness could survive the demise of the body.

Thanks for that- must admit I think I was a bit more peeved than usual when I typed my last post, especially after having spent most of last week wrangling with Wesley Crosland on this subject (on the China Station thread). I think everyone has certain topics/threads that pushes their buttons- this and the drug legalisation issue are mine (going to avoid these in future)!

You may be right about what happens when we die although I can't help thinking (wishfully? Possibly!) that life would be a bit pointless should that be the case. I know plenty of people think life is pointless and they may be right but there is the possibility that it does have a point and they just haven't got it yet. The militant atheist brigade on here share certain similarities to those who like to go round telling kids Father Christmas doesn't exist and that he is just a religious, conservative, fundamentalist, traditionalist delusion simply because they haven't seen him, when it could be that they just haven't been good enough to receive a visit- and before you ask, I know he exists- he ate all the mince pies I left out for him on Christmas Eve...greedy blighter!

I do recall the Stephen King book, Skeleton Crew- there is another excellent story in that collection- unrelated to this thread- called the Raft. You can also watch it on Youtube. A horrible situation to find yourself in. You'd like the ending...

Four Past midnight is also well worth getting- I love the story about the Langoliers- the film wasn't as good though but still watchable...

"That seems a bit like cherry-picking to me. Heaven forbid that that those in favour of global warming would be unable to give 'simple straightforward information', still less add their own opinions."

I can give specific examples of Mr Watts' distorting information on request. Mr Watts is very sensitive to criticism; he falsely invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove a video from youtube, which has since been restored after a counter-notice was filed. The DMCA is often used on youtube as a tool of censorship while the claims are obviously frivolous and in bad faith, not considering the Fair Use clause of the DMCA. Watts has a version of this story on his blog that misses out most of these details and instead substitutes his own statements as reasons for why the DMCA was valid and doesn't mention that it was successfully counter-noticed.

Unlike self-proclaimed 'sceptics', so-called 'warmists' criticise each other, not just 'the other side'. Pat Michaels reaction to the crowd at a meeting for other sceptics in 2008 when he told them to stop saying 'warming has stopped' and citing 1998 as proof was considerably more tense and defensive than how consensus scientists, bloggers and journalists get with each other when criticism is passed about. The censorship self-proclaimed sceptics complain of seems to be a projection, originating more closer to home.

To contributor Christopher Reason.
May I add to my last posting, sir, my sincere apology to you for the impertinence with which I discourteously concluded my first reply to your contribution. I beg your pardon for the lapse.

Well said Mark. I've been an atheist for most of my adult life but I've never felt the need to force my views on other people, in this context, 'live and let live' always seemed the best philosophy.

As to the afterlife, I don't believe there is one, I shall cease to exist. And yet I can't imagine not being there to see that I've ceased to exist, I know that doesn't make much sense but I can't find the words to describe how I feel. I mentioned Stephen King's short story 'The Jaunt' recently, I obviously can't say what he was thinking when he wrote it, but I'm coming to thinking death may be like that. My consciouness still intact and functioning but no input and no ability to do anything just an eternity of nothingness. Not a comforting thought.

Anyway, enough of such morbid reflections, I hope you have a Happy New Year.

Contributor Christopher Reason, whom I thank for his kind reply, writes:
" I was pointing out that the 'miraculous' aspects of Christianity don't withstand a moment's critical examination."

But you seemed to be pointing it out, sir, by saying that, because other people had said similar things, those things must be false, or to use your own expression, sir, those things did not withstand "a moment's critical examination". But what kind of critical examination can be given to a claim that something very unusual has happened?
Surely all you can do is believe it or disbelieve it, if it arouses your interest at all.
I can't see that any story of a virgin birth or any story of a resurrection from the dead can be subjected to any critical examination which is not subjective.
If there were, as you say, stories of such miraculous - that is, wonderful - happenings earlier than those related in the Christian New Testament, your suggestion that such a situation " points to some universal need to believe in the miraculous" may not actually be too different from how I think they could be considered.
I personally have little interest in or knowledge of ancient history or mythology to which you seem to be referring and so I can have no opinion about specific cases but in general terms I could imagine individuals with perhaps enhanced receptivity to insights into the nature of things being made aware in advance of real events which were to follow and, if those real events were extremely unusual, it would plainly be unreasonable to try to deny that they had happened, just because others had earlier told such stories.
Some of those stories may, of course, have been simple works of fiction but others, I suggest, may - for all we can know - have been "glimpses of future events" granted to particularly receptive individuals.
I don't know whether any such foresights have ever been granted but I suggest that to deny miracles simply because they are miraculous says more about the denier than it does about the miraculous event concerned.
.

Peter Preston points out; " But do those who don't practice the golfing arts go around suggesting that the game of golf doesn't exist, except in the imaginations of those who think they are playing it?
And do you, sir, as aphilatelist, deny the existence of postage stamps?"
No, and nor do atheists deny the existence of religion.
I myself do not deny the existence of stamps, I merely refrain from collecting them.
That I think is a more appropriate analogy.

Contributor Ray Collins, whom I thank for his kind reply, writes
"Peter Preston wonders whether atheists have to practice.
I suspect not sir, in the same way that non-golfers don't have to practice that state lest they find themselves on a course with some clubs, unsure of what to do.
As regards boredom, I myself get untold hours of pleasure from not collecting stamps. I confess I am an aphilatelist."

But do those who don't practice the golfing arts go around suggesting that the game of golf doesn't exist, except in the imaginations of those who think they are playing it?
And do you, sir, as aphilatelist, deny the existence of postage stamps?

I must admit, that's a good question you have posed to me there and worthy of a serious answer but before I get to that I may as well explain why I seem to be having a dig at atheists recently.

I have no problem with atheists, nor do I feel the need to convert them. After all, how boring would it be if we all believed the same thing? No, what really irks me is how some of the atheists on here become all aggressive and patronising and then when they are pulled up on it they start howling like they've just been victimised by a member of the Inquisition, followed by a torrent of abuse which usually includes the phrase "religious nutjob". This usually comes from people who claim to have a love for freedom but what they really mean is they want to be free to express themselves but they don't want others to have the same opportunity.

I believe people should be able to express their opinions without fear of some of the nasty ridicule received on here. Don't get me wrong, I am not against criticism- in fact I'm all for it. Why have faith if we can't put it to the test every now and then? I just think it can be done without trying to completely trash the beliefs of others.

What is also irksome is that the militant atheists on here have absolutely no idea as to what awaits us in the afterlife. They may well be right in that we cease to exist but they have no way of knowing this. Why do they have to sneeringly talk down to others who believe differently when they are in no better position than anyone else?

It's not the atheist belief (just as devout as any other religion no matter how much they try and squirmingly deny it), it's the aggressiveness and thoughtlessness they show when they try and insist they know best. People turn to religion for all sorts of reasons and many people (rightly or wrongly) feel the need to believe in life beyond the grave. Belief aside, going to church also provides a social outlet for many, often the only form of socialising they have. Yet there are those on here who couldn't give a tinker's cuss about them. What satisfaction do they gain from spoling it for them?

Just look at the reaction when you tell them they are just as devout in their atheist beliefs as anyone else. They really don't like having their hypocrisy thrown back at them. I don't know who said that man is a religious being regardless of what he believes in but he hit the nail right on the head as far as I'm concerned...

As for what being a Catholic means to me. Well, I think it's a personal thing. Just as I don't appreciate the above militant atheists forcing their beliefs aggressively on others neither do I appreciate it coming from the other side. I suppose it boils down to how we conduct ourselves in our faith really.

Yes I have criticised Steven Armstrong but only for using constant scripture quotes- and all I did really was to suggest it would be better if he mixed it in with his own thoughts from time to time- I think he gets a lot of stick on here, some of it unfairly (I include myself in this). He is a different kettle of fish from the militants I have described above, and to my mind, far more pleasant to deal with.

Also, when I said I am a lapsed Catholic (you have a decent memory) I meant in the sense that I haven't been to church for a while- however, I have been reading the Bible recemtly (not going to bash you over the head with it- someone is bound to come out wiht that one) and I still say prayers so it's not all bad.

My own idea of being a Catholic is that we are all on earth to serve in whatever way we can to help others lead a good life. That is pretty much a condensed version of it.

Christianity can provide a moral compass of sorts (sounds a very cheesy cliche but it worked for me), something we all need. I'm not saying we should become slaves to tradition but where would we be without it?

Must go as I am out of time- I am happy to answer further questions if you have any.

Kind regards and if I am unable to make it tomorrow night, Happy New Year One and All..

Mr Preston, I wasn't advancing the case against theism. I was pointing out that the 'miraculous' aspects of Christianity don't withstand a moment's critical examination. And as proof of this, I cited the fact that many many religions and mythologies have told stories of virgin births [Zoraster is the first that springs to mind] and resurrections [Morus? Mithras?]. This points to some universal need to believe in the miraculous. Which is fascinating. But that's all it is. Are you suggesting that the story of Mithras is literally true? If not, how can you say the same about Jesus? They're stories. Good ones. But that's all they are.

It always amuses me how some naïve ‘people’ of faith vainly attempt to describe atheism as some kind of religion… they must be somewhat ashamed about belonging to a cult themselves (ie Christianity), and so they feel the need to ease their embarrassment by inventing a cult into which atheists can be placed. It’s rather like many traditionalist conservatives who are so ashamed (quite rightly) that their views almost perfectly match those of the extreme right-wing BNP, they attempt with staggering ineptitude to describe the BNP as being of the ‘left’.

Some Christians at this blog seem to be suggesting that everyone is *born* into a religion, and that the so-called ‘atheist’ has decided at some point in their lives to opt out of religious belief.

This is utter nonsense, and, of course, the exact opposite is true…

Let me spell it out, for the benefit of the gullible and deluded Christian…

**everyone is born an atheist**

It is the person of faith who has *chosen* to belong to a religion.

An atheist is simply a member of the human race… yes, he may belong to a book club, and support a football team and he may even be a member of a political party, but he does not belong to a religion. Religion is all about adherence to a set of beliefs… to say an atheist is religious because he does not believe in a ‘god’ is as ridiculous as saying that a man is not a butterfly because he has no wings.

The atheist does not *pretend* to know the meaning of life, or what came before the big bang, or how many other universes there are… we have a completely open mind, unlike the Christian, who chooses to fill in the blanks that science cannot yet provide the answers for, by believing in an entirely baseless and fabricated fairy tale. The atheist accepts that whilst science is the only way we will ever begin to understand the cosmos, science may never provide all the answers. Indeed, the atheist’s mind is so open that we are even willing to accept the possibility that the universe is the artistic creation of a great intelligence. However, we recognize that such an intelligence would bear no resemblance to the god featured in Christianity, and such an intelligence would almost certainly be unaware of our existence, and therefore would not seek our worship, and would therefore be totally undeserving of our worship.

Let me put it this way. There are many football teams in the world, just as there are many religions. Some people will support Man Utd or Liverpool FC, just as some may be Christians and others Muslim. And, just as there are many people who have no interest in or connection with football at all, there are many people who have no interest in or connection with religion. The latter are known as atheists or non-believers because they do not belong to a religion, whereas the former are simply people who do not have an interest in football - but no-one suggests that non-football fans be bracketed together as belonging to some kind of group, as some Christians hilariously and desperately try to bracket atheists together into a ‘religion’.

However, this is exactly the problem the humanist has with organised religion. If an adult person chooses to belong to a religion, that is fine, we have no problem with that. However, the humanist cannot abide the fact that many children have no choice in the matter when they are indoctrinated into a religious faith before they have gained the education and experience to make the choice for themselves…

Unlike the Christian fundamentalist who seeks to indoctrinate others into their faith, the humanist is tolerant of both atheist and moderate Christian. We may regard the Christian’s belief in a ‘god’ as somewhat bizarre, but we do not deny a person’s right to belong to a religion, only that they be prevented from brainwashing children into their faith.

Every Christian on this planet has become a Christian because another human being, through spoken word or the bible, has communicated the Christian religion to that person. No Christian has ever discovered Christian belief for themselves…

‘God’ has never spoken to any Christian, therefore all Christians have either chosen to be Christians based on custom and superstitious tradition handed down from one generation to the next, or have been forced into religion as children by their parents…

This is why the evil practice of indoctrinating children into religion must cease… Most young people do not even have a fully developed conscience until age 8, what chance does the 5 year old have in the face of religious indoctrination.

If children were to be made exempt from religious indoctrination, and the only way people could become Christian would be by choosing to do so at a time of *their* choosing, then religion would decline at an even greater rate than it is at present - something to be greatly encouraged.

It is a bitter irony and paradox, that the Christian fundamentalist, who is so often also a traditionalist conservative, seeks to misguidedly and disingenuously deny their children vital sex and drugs education, and yet actively force their children into a stultifying and repressing religious cult that dilutes and trivializes human appreciation of the wonders of the cosmos, and also teaches the child a set of spurious and subjective moral rules that strip the child of compassion, humanity, and humility… as demonstrated time and time again with horrible consequences throughout history.

The argument many Christians use against the humanist is, without Christianity, from where will mankind get its moral guidance?

First of all, the very fact they use this argument displays not only the lack of conviction many have in their own religion, but also the fact many Christians are slaves to their religion because they do not trust their own moral judgement…

Indeed, such an assertion is utterly spurious because many great evils in mankind’s past and present have been perpetrated in the name of Christianity... Whereas the enlightened atheist or agnostic has proven time and time again throughout history to be just as capable of acts of altruism as those of religious faith.

However, the simple answer is that human beings have an innate moral code, it’s part of what makes us human. Religion took its moral values from mankind in the first place, and since that time numerous religious zealots and misanthropes have twisted and distorted those morals to suit their own nefarious aims. The pope is living proof of a man who would sooner see sub-Saharan Africans contract HIV than allow them free access to the condoms that would help prevent the spread of the disease.

It is no co-incidence that so many Christian traditionalist conservatives are sanctimonious, arrogant, mean-spirited, unforgiving, and judgemental hypocrites.

These ‘Christians’ are the most un-Christian people I know, the ultimate hypocrites, who completely ignore what Jesus supposedly had to say about forgiveness, turning the other cheek and compassion, and instead lust for revenge against those who engage in criminal activity, are intolerant of many minority groups, and look down with contempt on those less fortunate than themselves.

It is also no co-incidence that a greater proportion of the prison population are of religious faith, than in society as a whole...

In the spirit of Christmas time, Alena, I bid you welcome. This site has a healthy mixture of posters, ranging from the awfully nice to the rather horrid. Rather than reveal which wing I belong to, I will leave you to judge if and when I respond to your first proclamation.
That nonsense aside, can I just say that going against the grain may sometimes be bruising, but can also be rewarding, particularly when a like-minded voice springs up from nowhere to add support...

In response to Mev; I am of the opinion that the BNP is an inherently bigoted and racialist organisation that is currently dressed as a wolf in sheep's clothing. I also believe that given a chance, it would reveal its true self.
However, it is a legitimate political party and as such, has the right to exist and its own beliefs. I am in total agreement with you that it is not the place of the Church of England to encourage people what to think and vote.
I also agree that the Anglican Church is currently like the Tory Party and says anything it thinks will gain it popularity. On that basis, amongst others, I have to say that I am currently finished with the Church of England and just hope that one day, its believers see sense and rebel against this hijacking. Until then, I regret that I shall not have any affiliation for it and shall see myself as merely "Christian".

Thanks for your post. Would you believe me if I told you I am in the middle of a creative writing course?

Anyway, it is nice of you to help your "struggling pupil". If only all atheists were as helpful...

Actually I tried switching from 'militant atheist' to 'religious nutjob' and it didn't work out. If you don't believe me just take a look at some of the militant atheist comments on here. You'll find such delightful phrases like "cancer" (Mike Lee), "garbage" (Wesley Crosland), "shouldn't be read by sentient beings"(Kyle Mulholland) etc etc.

Would you care to highlight some examples of patronising, lofty "religious nutjobs"? I'd be keen to know who they are- and please don't pick on Steven Armstrong, who admittedly is overly keen but never uses insulting language like what I have just pointed out. I say this because he always seems to be picked on in debates such as this..

In some ways you are right though. Atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity is so I suppose the militant atheists could also be called religious nutjobs. David Edwards in his excellent book "Free to be Human" sums it all up perfectly (scuse the block caps- they are the author's italics):

"Although the atheistic certainty regarding God, life and death is essentially another religious retreat from the awesome uncertainty, mystery and bewilderment of the human condition into false certainty, there is a difference that entirely seperates it from all other religious ideas. For, as a belief, atheism is supremely resistant to iconoclastic criticism because it purports to be NOT BELIEF, not religion but- reality. However, not only is atheism a belief, a religion, but it is one that declares itself to be the final reality, the final truth beyond all lies- and where have we heard that before? In the same way that 'The true fiend rules in God's name', so true delusion speaks in the name of true realism. True belief speaks in the name of non-belief."

So, you are right. Let's unite against the religious nutjobs- of all persuasions eh?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.